The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 10 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Political Polarization on Twitter
Open accessAbstract
In this study we investigate how social media shape the networked public sphere and facilitate communication between communities with different political orientations. We examine two networks of political communication on Twitter, comprised of more than 250,000 tweets from the six weeks leading up to the 2010 U.S. congressional midterm elections. Using a combination of network clustering algorithms and manually-annotated data we demonstrate that the network of political retweets exhibits a highly segregated partisan structure, with extremely limited connectivity between left- and right-leaning users. Surprisingly this is not the case for the user-to-user mention network, which is dominated by a single politically heterogeneous cluster of users in which ideologically-opposed individuals interact at a much higher rate compared to the network of retweets. To explain the distinct topologies of the retweet and mention networks we conjecture that politically motivated individuals provoke interaction by injecting partisan content into information streams whose primary audience consists of ideologically-opposed users. We conclude with statistical evidence in support of this hypothesis.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Conover et al. analyze political communication on Twitter during the six weeks before the 2010 U.S. midterm elections, using retweet and mention networks built from 252,300 politically relevant tweets. They find that the retweet network is highly segregated along partisan lines, while the mention network is dominated by a single politically heterogeneous cluster, with cross-ideological interaction linked to hashtag content injection.
Key findings
- The retweet network is highly polarized: its modularity is 0.48 versus 0.17 for the mention network, and its modularity z-score against degree-preserving shuffled graphs is 11.02 versus 2.06 for mentions. In the retweet network, cluster A is 93.4% right-leaning and cluster B is 80.1% left-leaning.
- The mention network is politically heterogeneous: it is dominated by a single cluster accounting for more than 97% of users, and cross-ideological links are much more common than in retweets. Observed/expected link ratios for cross-ideological interaction are 0.68 (Left→Right) and 0.77 (Right→Left) in mentions, versus 0.05 and 0.03 in retweets.
- Manual annotation found most politically active users express a political identity: both annotators could not determine identity for only 8% of users, and more than 75% had unambiguous political valences when requiring both annotators to agree. Cohen’s Kappa was 0.80 for left and 0.82 for right, but only 0.42 for undecidable.
- Hashtag content injection helps explain the difference: users with neutral or mixed-valence hashtags receive and produce more inter-ideological mentions, and nearly 30% of tweets in the #p2 search feed originated from right-leaning users. Example valences include #tcot = 0.384 and #p2 = -0.605.
Methods
- Data were collected from Twitter’s gardenhose API between September 14 and November 1, 2010, observing approximately 355 million tweets. Political content was identified using seed hashtags #p2 and #tcot, a Jaccard similarity threshold of 0.005, 66 unique hashtags, and exclusion of 11 ambiguous hashtags, yielding 252,300 politically relevant tweets from more than 45,000 users.
- The authors constructed retweet and mention networks. The retweet network had 23,766 non-isolated nodes out of 45,365 total, with an 18,470-node largest connected component; the mention network had 10,142 non-isolated nodes out of 17,752 total, with a 7,175-node largest component. Analyses focused on the largest connected components.
- Community detection used label propagation seeded by leading-eigenvector modularity maximization for two communities, run 100 times and compared with Adjusted Rand Index. The authors compared observed modularity to 1,000 degree-preserving shuffled graphs, manually annotated 1,000 random users with a non-author judge on 200, and analyzed observed versus expected cross-ideological links and hashtag valence.
Limitations
- The paper states that direct modularity comparison is problematic because the retweet and mention networks differ in size and connectivity, so it uses shuffled graphs as a baseline; it also notes that the normality assumption for modularity values is false and uses Chebyshev’s inequality instead. It further states that cross-ideological interactions are “almost certainly not a panacea” and may reinforce polarization, and calls for further sentiment analysis and follower-network studies.
- Evident from the text: the sample is limited to six weeks before the 2010 U.S. midterm elections and to tweets containing a discovered set of political hashtags, so findings may not generalize to other periods, elections, or political contexts.
- Evident from the text: manual political alignment was based on 1,000 users, the undecidable category had only fair-to-moderate inter-annotator agreement (κ = 0.42), and the mention network is smaller than the retweet network, which may affect comparisons.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
30 Own result · 13 Own interpretation · 5 No full text of the sources · 4 Own method · 3 Sources not found · 3 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Figure 2 shows that in the mention network, users placed in the same cluster are not likely to be much more similar to each other than users in different clusters.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 3.2 Content Homogeneity
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We conclude that the community structure found in the retweet network is significantly more segregated than that found in the mention network.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 3.1 Community Structure
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, we note that in both mention and retweet networks, one of the clusters is more cohesive than the other -meaning the tag usage within one community is more homogeneous.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 3.2 Content Homogeneity
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All differences are significant at the 95% confidence level.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 3.2 Content Homogeneity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on this analysis it is clear that a majority of politically active users on Twitter express a political identity in their tweets.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 3.3 Political Polarization
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result the average similarity within retweet clusters is higher than across clusters.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 3.2 Content Homogeneity
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Instead we find that it is dominated by a politically heterogeneous cluster accounting for more than 97% of the users”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 3.3 Political Polarization
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“messages in this style make up a substantial portion of the results.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 4.2 Content Injection
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A key finding of this study, these results indicate that users contributing to a politically balanced combination of content streams on average receive and produce more inter-ideological communication than those who use mostly partisan hashtags.”
- Also stated in: § 5 Conclusions · hedged
“Specifically, users who apply hashtags with neutral or mixed valence are more likely to engage in communication with opposing communities.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 4.3 Political Valence
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Any Twitter user can select arbitrary hashtags to annotate his or her tweets.
- Also stated in: § 5 Conclusions · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the content is frequently disparaging of the identities and views associated with users across the partisan divide.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 5 Conclusions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 18
- Probably not a substantial claim. 10
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We observe that the retweet and mention networks exhibit very similar scale-free topology (power-law degree distribution not shown), with a number of users receiving or spreading a huge amount of information.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 2.3 Political Communication Networks
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using a combination of network clustering algorithms and manually-annotated data we demonstrate that the network of political retweets exhibits a highly segregated partisan structure, with extremely limited connectivity between left-and right-leaning users.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · boosted
“We demonstrate that the retweet network exhibits a highly modular structure, segregating users into two homogenous communities corresponding to the political left and right.”
- Also stated in: § 3.1 Community Structure · plain
“In summary, the retweet network contains two clusters of users who preferentially propagate content within their own communities.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > Abstract
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · boosted
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the other hand, in the retweet network, users in cluster A are more likely to have very similar profiles than users in cluster B, and users in different clusters are the least similar to each other.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 3.2 Content Homogeneity
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The retweet network exhibits two distinct communities of users, while the mention network is dominated by a single massive cluster of interconnected users.”
- Also stated in: § 3.1 Community Structure · plain
“Figure 1 shows the retweet and mention networks, laid out using a force-directed layout algorithm (Fruchterman and Reingold 1991), with node colors determined by the assigned communities.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 3.1 Community Structure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 3.1 Community Structure · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Surprisingly this is not the case for the user-to-user mention network, which is dominated by a single politically heterogeneous cluster of users in which ideologically-opposed individuals interact at a much higher rate compared to the network of retweets.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
“In contrast, we find that the mention network does not exhibit this kind of political segregation, resulting in users being exposed to individuals and information they would not have been likely to choose in advance.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
“These data also show the mention network to be politically heterogeneous, with users of opposing political views interacting at a much higher rate than in the retweet network”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Manual classification of Twitter users by political alignment, demonstrating that the retweet network clusters correspond to the political left and right.”
- Also stated in: § 3 Cluster Analysis · boosted
“by manually annotating users, we show that the retweet network is polarized on a partisan basis, while the mention network is much more politically heterogeneous.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 1 Introduction
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 3 Cluster Analysis · boosted
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The modularity induced by the communities in the retweet and mention networks have values of 0.48 and 0.17, respectively.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 3.1 Community Structure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“nearly 30% of the tweets in the #p2 search feed would originate from right-leaning users.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 4.2 Content Injection
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Increasing the number of target communities in the mention network does not reveal a more fine-grained ideological structure, but instead results in smaller yet politically heterogeneous clusters.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 3.3 Political Polarization
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While we know for certain that ideologically-opposed users interact with one another, either through mentions or content injection, they very rarely share information from across the divide with other members of their community.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 5 Conclusions
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These two means of communication -retweets and mentions-serve distinct and complementary purposes, together acting as the primary mechanisms for explicit, public user-user interaction on Twitter.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 2.1 The Twitter Platform
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Mentions function differently, allowing someone to address a specific user directly through the public feed, or, to a lesser extent, refer to an individual in the third person (Honeycutt and Herring 2008).”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 2.1 The Twitter Platform
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Honeycutt and Herring 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In line with the standards of the field, we had a non-author judge with a broad knowledge of politics annotate 200 random users from the set of 1,000 to establish the reproducibility of this annotation scheme.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 3.3 Political Polarization
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“For agreement between the 'left' and 'right' categories we report κ = 0.80 and κ = 0.82 respectively, both of which fall in the "nearly perfect agreement" range (Landis and Koch 1977).”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 3.3 Political Polarization
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Landis and Koch 1977 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Retweets act as a form of endorsement, allowing individuals to rebroadcast content generated by other users, thereby raising the content's visibility (boyd, Golder, and Lotan 2008).”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 2.1 The Twitter Platform
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites boyd, Golder, and Lotan 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such a high agreement suggests that the clusters are consistent, and therefore we avoid resorting to consensus clustering for simplicity.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 3.1 Community Structure
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We argue that this process results in users being exposed to content they are not likely to rebroadcast, but to which they may respond using mentions, and provide statistical evidence in support of this hypothesis.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 1 Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Each hashtag identifies a stream of content, with users' tag choices denoting participation in different information channels.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Adamic and Glance (2005) famously demonstrated that political blogs preferentially link to other blogs of the same political ideology, a finding supported by the work of Hargittai, Gallo, and Kane (2007).”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Consumers of online political information tend to behave similarly, choosing to read blogs that share their political beliefs, with 26% more users doing so in 2008than 2004(Pew Internet and American Life Project 2008).”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Pew Internet and American Life Project 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Despite this, some empirical evidence suggests that politically active web users tend to organize into insular, homogenous communities segregated along partisan lines.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the undecidable category we found "fair to moderate" agreement (κ = 0.42), indicating that there are users for whom a political identity might be discernible in the context of specific domain knowledge.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 3.3 Political Polarization
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many messages contain sentiments more extreme than you would expect to encounter in face-to-face interactions”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 5 Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We propose that when a user is exposed to ideologically opposed content in this way, she will be unlikely to rebroadcast it, but may choose to respond directly to the originator in the form of a mention.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 4.2 Content Injection
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Any Twitter user can select arbitrary hashtags to annotate his or her tweets.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and ostensibly serves as a place where progressives can once again be exposed only to content aligned with their views.”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 4.2 Content Injection
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: Any Twitter user can select arbitrary hashtags to annotate his or her tweets.
The paper relies on this without support.
When politically active individuals can avoid people and information they would not have chosen in advance, their opinions are likely to become increasingly extreme as a result of being exposed to more homogeneous viewpoints and fewer credible opposing opinions.
“The concern is that when politically active individuals can avoid people and information they would not have chosen in advance, their opinions are likely to become increasingly extreme as a result of being exposed to more homogeneous viewpoints and fewer credible opposing opinions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A deliberative democracy relies on a broadly informed public and a healthy ecosystem of competing ideas.
“A deliberative democracy relies on a broadly informed public and a healthy ecosystem of competing ideas.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Each hashtag identifies a stream of content, with users' tag choices denoting participation in different information channels.
“Each hashtag identifies a stream of content, with users' tag choices denoting participation in different information channels.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The modularities of shuffled graph cluster assignments are normally distributed.
“This discussion assumes that the modularities of the shuffled graph cluster assignments are distributed normally, which is not true in general.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The partisan nature of U.S. political discourse makes two a natural number of clusters.
“While the partisan nature of U.S. political discourse makes two a natural number of clusters”
The paper relies on this without support.
Any Twitter user can select arbitrary hashtags to annotate his or her tweets.
“Any Twitter user can select arbitrary hashtags to annotate his or her tweets.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 2.1 The Twitter Platform
“between September 14th and November 1st, 2010”
§ Political Polarization on Twitter > 2.1 The Twitter Platform
“During the six weeks of data collection”
Citations
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148 · cited 2×
“For agreement between the 'left' and 'right' categories we report κ = 0.80 and κ = 0.82 respectively, both of which fall in the " nearly perfect agreement " range (Landis and Koch 1977).”
BackgroundInfluentialContent Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology.
Shelley, M., & Krippendorff, K. (1984) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288384 · Cited by 24,346
Finding and evaluating community structure in networks
Newman, M. E. J., & Girvan, M. (2004) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.69.026113 · Cited by 13,931 · cited 2×
“Modularity (Newman and Girvan 2004) resulting from the cluster assignments offers a first measure of segregation , and reinforces the qualitative finding above.”
ResultHubert, L., & Arabie, P. (1985) · Journal of Classification · doi:10.1007/bf01908075 · Cited by 8,219
Graph drawing by force‐directed placement
Fruchterman, T. M. J., & Reingold, E. M. (1991) · Software: Practice and Experience · doi:10.1002/spe.4380211102 · Cited by 6,352 · cited 1×
“Figure 1 shows the retweet and mention networks, laid out using a force-directed layout algorithm (Fruchterman and Reingold 1991), with node colors determined by the assigned communities.”
MethodFinding community structure in networks using the eigenvectors of matrices
Newman, M. E. J. (2006) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.74.036104 · Cited by 4,799 · cited 2×
“To improve its effectiveness and stability , we seeded the algorithm with initial node labels determined by the leading-eigenvector modularity maximization method for two clusters (Newman 2006).”
MethodNear linear time algorithm to detect community structures in large-scale networks
Raghavan, U. N., Albert, R., & Kumara, S. R. T. (2007) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.76.036106 · Cited by 3,535 · cited 1×
“Label propagation (Raghavan, Albert, and Kumara 2007) works by assigning an initial arbitrary cluster membership to each node and then iteratively updating each node's label according to the label that is shared by most of its neighbors.”
BackgroundPredicting Elections with Twitter: What 140 Characters Reveal about Political Sentiment
Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T. O., Sandner, P., & Welpe, I. M. (2010) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v4i1.14009 · Cited by 2,647 · cited 1×
“Social media play an important role in shaping political discourse in the U.S. and around the world (Bennett 2003; Benkler 2006; Sunstein 2007; Farrell and Drezner 2008; Aday et al. 2010; Tumasjan et al. 2010; O'Connor et al. 2010).”
BackgroundThe political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: divided they blog
Adamic, L. A., & Glance, N. (2005) · Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery · doi:10.1145/1134271.1134277 · Cited by 2,619
Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter
Boyd, D., Golder, S., & Lotan, G. (2010) · 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.1109/hicss.2010.412 · Cited by 2,051 · cited 1×
“Retweets act as a form of endorsement, allowing individuals to rebroadcast content generated by other users, thereby raising the content's visibility (boyd, Golder, and Lotan 2008).”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Sunstein, C. R. 2007. Republic.com 2.0. Princeton Univer- sity Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 631
Jiang, J., Ren, X., & Ferrara, E. (2023) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v17i1.22160 · Cited by 44
Arabic Offensive Language Classification on Twitter
Mubarak, H., & Darwish, K. M. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-34971-4_18 · Cited by 39
A multi-source integration framework for user occupation inference in social media systems
Huang, Y., Yu, L., Wang, X., & Cui, B. (2014) · World Wide Web · doi:10.1007/s11280-014-0300-6 · Cited by 35
“As pointed out by [7], the mention function (@) in social network, often plays a role to connect users having different or even opposed opinions and behaviors, which results in the poor homophily phenomenon in mention network and low inference performance consequently.”
BackgroundSevero, M., Feredj, A., & Romele, A. (2016) · Policy & Internet · doi:10.1002/poi3.127 · Cited by 41
Rau, J. P., & Stier, S. (2019) · Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft · doi:10.1007/s12286-019-00429-1 · Cited by 44
“…ausgeprägte Fragmentierung des politischen Diskurses entlang politischer Ideologien feststellen (unter vielen Studien z.B.: Barberá et al. 2015; Conover et al. 2011; Lietz et al. 2014; Vaccari et al. 2016), jedoch variieren die Ergebnisse stark in Abhängigkeit vom Thema (politisch vs.…”
BackgroundIdeological biases in social sharing of online information about climate change
Cann, T. J. B., Weaver, I. S., & Williams, H. T. P. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0250656 · Cited by 38
García, G. L., Gamir-Ríos, J., García-Ull, F. J., et al. (2015) · Revista de Estudios Políticos · doi:10.18042/cepc/rep.170.07 · Cited by 34
Using Social Media to Infer Gender Composition of Commuter Populations
Liu, W. J., Zamal, F. A., & Ruths, D. A. (2021) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v6i5.14223 · Cited by 34
“Twitter users, in particular, have frequently been analyzed using the content of their microblogs (Rao et al. 2010; Pennacchiotti and Popescu 2011; Conover et al. 2011; Burger, Henderson, and Zarrella 2011; Rao and Yarowsky 2010; Zamal, Liu, and Ruths 2012).”
BackgroundResultKang, X., Shi, X., Wu, Y., & Ren, F. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing · doi:10.1109/taffc.2020.3038401 · Cited by 33
“…in natural language promotes the understanding of people’s thought as the intelligence of many intention-understanding-related applications, such as market opinion analysis [17], [18], [19], public opinion analysis [20], [21], [22], [23], and mental health diagnosis [24], [25], [26], [27], [28].”
BackgroundCan Confirmation Bias Improve Group Learning?
Gabriel, N., & O’Connor, C. (2024) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1017/psa.2023.176 · Cited by 35
“While there is debate about the impact of these effects, researchers have argued that they promote polarization (Conover et al., 2011; Sunstein and Sunstein, 2018; Chitra and Musco, 2020), harm knowledge (Holone, 2016), and lead to worryingly uniform information streams (Sunstein and Sunstein,…”
BackgroundBig Data, Collection of (Social Media, Harvesting)
Liang, H., & Zhu, J. J. H. (2017) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0015 · Cited by 35
“However, the degree of fragmentation may vary across the nature of network ties and time (Conover et al., 2011).”
BackgroundDepolarization of echo chambers by random dynamical nudge
Currin, C. B., Vera, S. V., & Khaledi‐Nasab, A. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-12494-w · Cited by 36
Ebeling, R., Sáenz, C. A. C., Nobre, J. C., & Becker, K. E. (2022) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v16i1.19281 · Cited by 36
“Political polarization can also be inferred by analyzing clusters of retweets/mentions of tweets from users (Conover et al. 2011) or by models analyzing a set of features extracted from the tweets (PreoţiucPietro et al. 2017).”
BackgroundJensen, M. J., & Anstead, N. (2013) · Policy & Internet · doi:10.1002/1944-2866.poi329 · Cited by 31
The Spread of Misinformation in Social Media
Menczer, F. (2016) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/2872518.2890092 · Cited by 32
“As social media become major channels for the diffusion of news and information, they are also increasingly attractive and targeted for abuse and manipulation [2, 3].”
BackgroundSelf-citationGuerra, P., Nalon, R., Assunção, R., & Meira, W. (2017) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14971 · Cited by 36
“It is a standard practice to measure the degree of antagonism between communities through separation metrics such as modularity, considering that the more separated the communities are, the higher their level of antagonism and controversy (Adamic and Glance 2005; Conover et al. 2011).”
BackgroundInfluentialUsers Are Known by the Company They Keep
Thonet, T., Cabanac, G., Boughanem, M., & Pinel-Sauvagnat, K. (2017) · ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) · doi:10.1145/3132847.3132897 · Cited by 32
Counterspeech on Twitter: A Field Study
Ruths, D. A., Saleem, H. M., Dillon, K. P., Wright, L. W., & Benesch, S. (2016) · Issue Lab (Candid) · doi:10.15868/socialsector.34066 · Cited by 36
Modeling User Attitude toward Controversial Topics in Online Social Media
Gao, H., Mahmud, J., Chen, J., et al. (2014) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14513 · Cited by 30
“The assignment follows the traditional assumption of studying user retweeting behavior, that when a user retweets a tweet, we assume he endorses the tweet content (Boyd, Golder, and Lotan 2010; Conover et al. 2011; Welch et al. 2011; Calais Guerra et al. ).”
BackgroundI’m a Belieber: Social Roles via Self-identification and Conceptual Attributes
Beller, C. E., Knowles, R., Harman, C., Bergsma, S., Mitchell, M., & Durme, B. V. (2014) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.3115/v1/p14-2030 · Cited by 29
“…models are clearly in line with the goals of both computational advertising (Wortman, 2008) and the growing area of computational social science (Conover et al., 2011; Nguyen et al., 2011; Paul and Dredze, 2011; Pennacchiotti and Popescu, 2011; Moham-mad et al., 2013) where big data and…”
BackgroundTien, J. H., Eisenberg, M. C., Cherng, S. T., & Porter, M. A. (2020) · Applied Network Science · doi:10.1007/s41109-019-0223-3 · Cited by 34
“s [11{ 17], epidemiological surveillance and monitoring of health behaviors [18{24], contagion and online content propagation [25,26], identication of extremist groups [27], ideological polarization [8,28,29], and much more. Indeed, the combination of signicance for public discourse, data accessibility, and amenabilit…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialTowards Measuring Adversarial Twitter Interactions against Candidates in the US Midterm Elections
Hua, Y., Ristenpart, T., & Naaman, M. (2020) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v14i1.7298 · Cited by 29
“(1) Hashtags in user profile: We adapt an approach from previous work (Conover et al. 2011) to bootstrap politically polarized hashtags in user profiles.”
InfluentialAdvances in Public Opinion and Policy Attitudes Research
Bachner, J., & Hill, K. W. (2014) · Policy Studies Journal · doi:10.1111/psj.12052 · Cited by 29
Divided We Rule: Influencer Polarization on Twitter during Political Crises in India
Dash, S., Mishra, D., Shekhawat, G., et al. (2022) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v16i1.19279 · Cited by 28
“In their formative study of political polarization, Conover et al. (2011) explain homophily on social media through partisan user behavior in the United States.”
BackgroundPerspective-Taking to Reduce Affective Polarization on Social Media
Saveski, M., Gillani, N., Yuan, A., Vijayaraghavan, P., & Roy, D. (2022) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v16i1.19343 · Cited by 28
“…media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, where politically-active users generally tend to connect with and consume content from sources that align with their political views (Bakshy, Messing, and Adamic 2015; Conover et al. 2011; Cossard et al. 2020; Garimella et al. 2021; Cinelli et al. 2021).”
BackgroundInfluentialWhat's in Twitter: I Know What Parties are Popular and Who You are Supporting Now!
Boutet, A., Kim, H., & Yoneki, E. (2012) · IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM) · doi:10.1109/asonam.2012.32 · Cited by 28
The impact of noise and topology on opinion dynamics in social networks
Stern, S., & Livan, G. (2021) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.201943 · Cited by 27
“Fortunately, access to online forums and social media platforms has helped facilitate some big-data-driven empirical research, for example, studies confirming relationships between network modularity and opinion polarisation [28].”
BackgroundNg, J. Y., Verhoeff, N., & Steen, J. P. (2023) · BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies · doi:10.1186/s12906-023-03856-6 · Cited by 29
Detecting sociosemantic communities by applying social network analysis in tweets
Abascal-Mena, R., Lema, R., & Sèdes, F. (2015) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-015-0280-2 · Cited by 27
Maximizing the Diversity of Exposure in a Social Network
Aslay, Ç., Matakos, A., Galbrun, E., & Gionis, A. (2018) · Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icdm.2018.00102 · Cited by 26
Bubble Trouble: Strategies Against Filter Bubbles in Online Social Networks
Burbach, L., Halbach, P., Ziefle, M., & Valdez, A. S. C. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-22219-2_33 · Cited by 28
“[6, 15]) and other studies that have not found them on Facebook (see e.”
BackgroundMaximizing the Diversity of Exposure in a Social Network
Matakos, A., Aslay, Ç., Galbrun, E., & Gionis, A. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2020.3038711 · Cited by 28
“In order to measure how strongly these phenomena manifest themselves on social media, a significant body of work has emerged that focuses on measures for characterizing polarization [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12].”
BackgroundThe microdynamics of spatial polarization: A model and an application to survey data from Ukraine
Chu, O. J., Donges, J. F., Robertson, G. B., & Pop-Elecheș, G. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2104194118 · Cited by 24
Mining the evolutionary process of knowledge through multiple relationships between keywords
Zhang, X., Xie, Q. S., Song, C., & Song, M. (2022) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-022-04272-2 · Cited by 28
“For political sides, tracking the information epidemics in the social media identified the political discussions community (Guerrero-Solé, 2017), and the political polarization on Twitter (Conover et al., 2011).”
BackgroundAggressive behaviour of anti-vaxxers and their toxic replies in English and Japanese
Miyazaki, K., Uchiba, T., Tanaka, K., & Sasahara, K. (2022) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-022-01245-x · Cited by 26
“RT network clustering detects users with similar stances by applying network clustering to an RT network (Conover et al., 2011, Fortunato, 2010).”
Knowledge through social networks: Accuracy, error, and polarisation
Hahn, U., Merdes, C. J., & von Sydow, M. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0294815 · Cited by 30
Quantifying Polarization on Twitter: The Kavanaugh Nomination
Darwish, K. M. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-34971-4_13 · Cited by 25
“re ecting how strongly they are associated with the SUPP and OPP groups. These bins are: strong SUPP, SUPP, Neutral, OPP, and strong OPP. To perform the bucketing, we used the so-called valence score [2], which is computed for an element e as follows: Quantifying Polarization on Twitter 9 (a) FD using R (b) UMAP using…”
BackgroundMethodPolarization, abstention, and the median voter theorem
Jones, M. I., Sirianni, A., & Fu, F. (2022) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-022-01056-0 · Cited by 34
“…(Dixit and Weibull, 2007), and its empirical scope and potential causes have been the focus of impressive studies by information scientists (Conover et al., 2011), and computational social scientists (Bail et al., 2018), but it’s implications for rational choice voting models and candidate…”
Backgroundde Mello, V. O., Cheung, F., & Inzlicht, M. (2024) · Communications Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44271-024-00062-z · Cited by 35
“Most works on the subject examine the connectivity among users (through followings, replies, and retweets) to investigate the extent to which networks are segregated 3,29 .”
Politik in der digitalen Gesellschaft
Hofmann, J., Kersting, N., Ritzi, C., & Schünemann, W. J. (2019) · transcript Verlag eBooks · doi:10.14361/9783839448649 · Cited by 29
de Mello, V. O., Cheung, F., & Inzlicht, M. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/4x5em · Cited by 25
Chen, L., Wang, W., & Sheth, A. (2012) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35386-4_28 · Cited by 24
“Some efforts [6, 10, 5] have been made to address the problem of predicting the political preference/orientation of Twitter users in recent years.”
BackgroundTweeting MPs: Digital Engagement between Citizens and Members of Parliament in the UK
Agarwal, P., Sastry, N., & Wood, E. (2019) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v13i01.3359 · Cited by 24
“‘Town hall’ meetings in the USA serve a similar purpose.”
BackgroundInfluentialCoscia, M., & Rossi, L. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263184 · Cited by 24
“In our model, the opinions are not distributed uniformly at random, but each user’s opinion is correlated with their neighbors’ opinions, as homophily is a well-documented property of online social networks [22].”
BackgroundBarnes, M. J., & Karim, S. (2025) · Comparative Political Studies · doi:10.1177/00104140241312095 · Cited by 52
“These participatory websites encouraged greater homophilic clustering (Adamic & Natalie, 2005; Conover et al., 2011; Hargittai et al., 2008; Sunstein, 2001) with disaffected, grievance-driven men connecting with like-minded individuals, reinforcing their views about male subjugation, and allowing…”
Multipolar social systems: Measuring polarization beyond dichotomous contexts
Martín-Gutíerrez, S., Losada, J. C., & Benito, R. M. (2023) · Chaos Solitons & Fractals · doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2023.113244 · Cited by 29
Evidence of Demographic rather than Ideological Segregation in News Discussion on Reddit
Monti, C., D'Ignazi, J., Starnini, M., & De Francisci Morales, G. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023 · doi:10.1145/3543507.3583468 · Cited by 26
“Finally, Cinelli et al. [15] compared the presence of echo chambers around several controversial topics across four social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and Gab), highlighting that Facebook shows higher segregation of news consumption than Reddit.”
BackgroundInfluentialALT at SemEval-2020 Task 12: Arabic and English Offensive Language Identification in Social Media
Hassan, S., Samih, Y., Mubarak, H., & Abdelalí, A. (2020) · International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.semeval-1.249 · Cited by 26
“SVMs + ValenceList To reduce errors made by the SVM, we calculated valence score (Conover et al., 2011) for all Arabic words.”
MethodNeff, J. J., Laniado, D., Kappler, K. E., Volkovich, Y., Aragón, P., & Kaltenbrunner, A. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060584 · Cited by 24
“members in the context of article discussions does not indicate the same polarization that has been observed in other contexts [1,8,9].”
BackgroundJakubik, J., Vössing, M., Pröllochs, N., Bär, D., & Feuerriegel, S. (2023) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v17i1.22157 · Cited by 27
#RoeOverturned: Twitter Dataset on the Abortion Rights Controversy
Chang, R.-C., Rao, A., Zhong, Q., Wojcieszak, M., & Lerman, K. (2023) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v17i1.22207 · Cited by 29
Opinion Polarization during a Dichotomous Electoral Process
Olivares, G., Cárdenas, J. P., Losada, J. C., & Borondo, J. (2019) · Complexity · doi:10.1155/2019/5854037 · Cited by 25
“Previous studies have shown that the US elections polarize Internet, where both Twitter [3] and blogs [4] manifest a high political polarization.”
BackgroundHomophily and polarization on political twitter during the 2017 Norwegian election
Enjolras, B., & Salway, A. (2022) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-022-01018-z · Cited by 22
“…into like-minded subgroups with little linkage between each other (Adamic and Glance 2005; Aragón et al. 2013; Barbera 2015; Colleoni et al. 2014; Conover et al. 2011, 2012; Feller et al. 2021; Gaines and Mondak 2009; Garcia et al. 2015; Gruzd and Roy 2014; Hal-berstam and Knight 2014; Hargittai…”
Keuchenius, A., Törnberg, P., & Uitermark, J. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256696 · Cited by 27
Higher-order homophily on simplicial complexes
Sarker, A., Northrup, N., & Jadbabaie, A. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2315931121 · Cited by 21
Hwang, J., Su, M.-H., Jiang, X., Lian, R., Tveleneva, A., & Shah, D. V. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0271394 · Cited by 21
Investigating political polarization in India through the lens of Twitter
Borah, A., & Singh, S. R. (2022) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-022-00939-z · Cited by 21
“Our findings are in line with some of the existing studies Conover et al. (2011); Del Valle and Bravo (2018); Himelboim et al.”
MethodResultInfluential“I’m in the Bluesky Tonight”: Insights from a year worth of social data
Failla, A., & Rossetti, G. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0310330 · Cited by 21
“Here, we have provided a brief description of some interaction layers, but future works could explore their joint topology, temporal dynamics [33, 34], as well as other structures such as mentions networks [35] and higher-order topologies [26, 36].”
BackgroundMessage Impartiality in Social Media Discussions
Zafar, M. B., Gummadi, K. P., & Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C. (2021) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v10i1.14754 · Cited by 22
“…that political discussions in online world occur within highly polarized communities of users sharing similar political leanings or ideologies, with relatively little exchange of information between commu- nities (Adamic and Glance 2005; Conover et al. 2011b; Weber, Garimella, and Batayneh 2013).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialTelling Apart Tweets Associated with Controversial versus Non-Controversial Topics
Addawood, A., Rezapour, R., Abdar, O., & Diesner, J. (2017) · Workshop on Natural Language Processing and Computational Social Science (NLP+CSS) · doi:10.18653/v1/w17-2905 · Cited by 21
“Our work also relates to that of Conover et al. (2011), who studied controversy in political communication about congressional midterm elections using Twitter data .”
BackgroundMethodEmamgholizadeh, H., Nourizade, M., Tajbakhsh, M. S., Hashminezhad, M., & Hasheminezha, F. N. E. M. (2020) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-020-00703-1 · Cited by 24
“Conover et al. [18] extended previous research to social media.”
BackgroundMethodAffective polarization and dynamics of information spread in online networks
Lerman, K., Feldman, D., He, Z., & Rao, A. (2024) · npj Complexity · doi:10.1038/s44260-024-00008-w · Cited by 35
“To estimate the ideology of social media users, studies have relied on fol-lower relationships 36 , mention and retweet interactions 37,38 , and URL sharing 16,39 – 41 .”
Urban Food Democracy and Governance in North and South
Thornton, A. (2019) · International political economy series · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-17187-2 · Cited by 20
Birds of a Feather Flock Together Online: Digital Inequality in Social Media Repertoires
Horvát, E.-Á., & Hargittai, E. (2021) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051211052897 · Cited by 21
“, 2010), activism and political participation (Budak & Watts, 2015; Conover et al., 2011; González-Bailón & Wang, 2016; Hemphill & SchöpkeGonzalez, 2020), and spreading of (mis)information (Bakshy et al.”
BackgroundSeparating Polarization from Noise: Comparison and Normalization of Structural Polarization Measures
Salloum, A., Chen, T. H. Y., & Kivelä, M. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3512962 · Cited by 20
“A social network is suitable for polarization analysis with the methods described here if the link between two nodes indicates a positive relationship, such as friendship, preference similarity, endorsement, or agreement [2, 14, 30, 32].”
BackgroundMethodElectoral dynamics, new nationalisms, and party positions on Syrian refugees in Turkey
Secen, S., Al, S., & Arslan, B. (2024) · Turkish Studies · doi:10.1080/14683849.2024.2310850 · Cited by 21
Microblogging Content Propagation Modeling Using Topic-Specific Behavioral Factors
Hoang, T.-A., & Lim, E. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2016.2562628 · Cited by 20
“Also, we reviewworks on retweet analysis since retweet is the most common action that generates content propagation inmicroblogging sites.”
BackgroundA Motif-Based Approach for Identifying Controversy
Coletto, M., Garimella, K., Gionis, A., & Lucchese, C. (2017) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14949 · Cited by 23
“For example, many papers study controversy in very controlled case studies, or focus on a predefined topic, most typically politics (Conover et al. 2011), for which they employ auxiliary domain-specific sources and datasets.”
BackgroundKitzie, V., Mohammadi, E., & Karami, A. (2018) · Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/pra2.2018.14505501028 · Cited by 20
El impacto de la ultraderecha en Twitter durante las elecciones españolas de 2019
Guerrero-Solé, F., Mas-Manchón, L., & Aira, T. (2022) · Cuadernos info · doi:10.7764/cdi.51.27471 · Cited by 24
If Likes Were Votes: An Empirical Study on the 2011 Italian Administrative Elections
Giglietto, F. (2021) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v6i1.14286 · Cited by 20
Green, J., McCabe, S., Shugars, S., Chwe, H., Horgan, L., CAO, S., & Lazer, D. M. J. (2025) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055424000984 · Cited by 28
“…analysis on Facebook to Pages and Groups, which form for more specific reasons, González-Bailón et al. (2023) find stronger evidence of political segregation in information consumption — consistent with other work finding evidence of political homophily on social media (Conover et al. 2021; 2012).”
Balancing Spreads of Influence in a Social Network
Becker, R., Corò, F., D’Angelo, G., & Gilbert, H. (2020) · AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i01.5327 · Cited by 22
“was given by Conover et al. (2011) who studied the Twitter network during the 2010 US congressional midterm elections.”
BackgroundInfluentialDetection and impact estimation of social bots in the Chilean Twitter network
Mendoza, M., Providel, E., dos Santos, M. L. B., & Valenzuela, S. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-57227-3 · Cited by 22
Scalable News Slant Measurement Using Twitter
Le, H., Shafiq, Z., & Srinivasan, P. (2017) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14957 · Cited by 21
“Recent studies on Facebook (Bakshy, Messing, and Adamic 2015) and Twitter (Conover et al. 2011) have revealed polarization in the consumption and distribution of political news on social media sites.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialUnderstanding Communities via Hashtag Engagement: A Clustering Based Approach
DeMasi, O., Mason, D., & Ma, J. (2021) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v10i1.14746 · Cited by 19
“Some of this work has leveraged hashtags to find relevant information on Twitter (Conover et al. 2011; Burnap et al. 2014; Giglietto et al. 2015; Letierce et al. 2010; Vieweg et al. 2010).”
BackgroundSuper-amplifiers! The role of Twitter extended party networks in political elections
Yoon, N., Hemsley, J., Smith, A., Simpson, E., & Eakins, J. (2022) · Policy & Internet · doi:10.1002/poi3.295 · Cited by 18
Social media feedback and extreme opinion expression
Konovalova, E., Mens, G. L., & Schoell, N. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0293805 · Cited by 26
Entropy-based detection of Twitter echo chambers
Pratelli, M., Saracco, F., & Petrocchi, M. (2024) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae177 · Cited by 23
“The labels of the communities found through the community detection are then propagated in the retweet network: in fact, it is an old result that Twitter users endorse content created by others much more with retweets than with mentions [14–16].”
BackgroundInfluentialQuantifying Discrepancies in Opinion Spectra from Online and Offline Networks
Lee, D., Hahn, K. S., Yook, S., & Park, J. M. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124722 · Cited by 19
“Among many attempts to harness the potential of online social media, a prominent one is to mine the opinions and sentiments of the public for a variety of purposes, either academic or commercial [3–6].”
BackgroundTwitter’s Role in Digital Democracy, Post-Truth, and Political Polarization
Yeğen, C., Ayhan, B., & Demir, Y. (2022) · Romanian Journal of Communication and Public Relations · doi:10.21018/rjcpr.2022.2.343 · Cited by 21
Artificial intelligence chatbots mimic human collective behaviour
He, J. K., Wallis, F. P. S., Gvirtz, A., & Rathje, S. (2024) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjop.12764 · Cited by 24
“…where people are more likely to connect with those who share similar backgrounds (Aiello et al., 2012), discuss similar topics (Faralli et al., 2015; Himelboim et al., 2017; Kang & Lerman, 2012), and have similar values and beliefs (Conover et al., 2011; De Choudhury, 2011; Rathje et al., 2022).”
Martín-Gutíerrez, S., Losada, J. C., & Benito, R. M. (2018) · Complexity · doi:10.1155/2018/2413481 · Cited by 17
“These studies unravel the emergent patterns in our collective behavior and show how they can be used to gain insight about relevant social topics like economy [2], marketing [3], politics [4, 5], mobility [6], or polarization [7, 8].”
Beyond Fact-Checking: Network Analysis Tools for Monitoring Disinformation in Social Media
Guarino, S., Trino, N., Chessa, A., & Riotta, G. (2019) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-36687-2_36 · Cited by 17
“Following the literature [12,15], we resorted to retweets in order to analyze accounts and their interactions according to their possible political orientation.”
BackgroundMethodA Network Analysis of Twitter Interactions by Members of the U.S. Congress
Chamberlain, J. M., Spezzano, F., Kettler, J. J., et al. (2021) · ACM Transactions on Social Computing · doi:10.1145/3439827 · Cited by 17
Stier, S. (2022) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/eag28 · Cited by 17
Digital Human Sciences: New Objects – New Approaches
(2021) · doi:10.16993/bbk · Cited by 17
Modeling algorithmic bias: simplicial complexes and evolving network topologies
Pansanella, V., Rossetti, G., & Milli, L. (2022) · Applied Network Science · doi:10.1007/s41109-022-00495-7 · Cited by 17
Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. (2023) · The Review of International Organizations · doi:10.1007/s11558-023-09517-0 · Cited by 16
“…highly competitive economy of attention and the fragmentation of audiences driven by networked curation of content and selective exposure (Barberá & Zeitzoff, 2017; Conover et al., 2011; Garrett, 2009; Hall et al., 2020; Klinger & Svensson, 2015; Meraz & Papacha-rissi, 2013; Williams et al., 2015).”
InfluentialShaping opinions in social networks with shadow banning
Chen, Y.-S., & Zaman, T. R. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0299977 · Cited by 21
“For instance, one can make the objective function be the mean (or negative mean) if one wants to shift the opinions up (or down).”
BackgroundBeel, J., Xiang, T., Soni, S., & Yang, D. (2022) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v16i1.19270 · Cited by 18
“The growing popularity of Reddit has attracted research attention to predict and model controversy on its platform (Conover et al. 2011).”
BackgroundViewpoint Discovery and Understanding in Social Networks
Quraishi, M. A. N., Fafalios, P., & Herder, E. (2018) · ACM Web Science Conference (WebSci) · doi:10.1145/3201064.3201076 · Cited by 17
The Effect of Social Media on Elections: Evidence from the United StatesPreprint
Fujiwara, T., Müller, K., & Schwarz, C. R. (2020) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3719998 · Cited by 20
Bojić, L., Ilić, V., Prodanović, V., & Vuković, V. (2025) · Chinese Political Science Review · doi:10.1007/s41111-025-00326-x · Cited by 21
The Reddit Politosphere: A Large-Scale Text and Network Resource of Online Political Discourse
Hofmann, V., Schütze, H., & Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2022) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v16i1.19377 · Cited by 15
“Studies have investigated a wide range of phenomena including political polarization (Adamic and Glance 2005; Conover et al. 2011; Himelboim, McCreery, and Smith 2013; Weber, Garimella, and Batayneh 2013; Garcia et al. 2015; Garimella et al. 2018; Morales et al. 2019), ideological radicalization (Grover and Mark 2019;…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialEvolving linguistic divergence on polarizing social media
Karjus, A., & Cuskley, C. F. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-02922-9 · Cited by 18
“…2023a, Louf et al. 2023b), sampling data by topically relevant keywords or hashtags (Chen et al. 2021; Demszky et al. 2019; Oakey et al. 2022), categorizing user-generated content (Fraxanet et al. 2023) or clustering networks built from retweeting/reposting or follower data (Conover et al. 2011).”
A network approach for multiscale catchment classification using traits
Ciulla, F., & Varadharajan, C. (2024) · Hydrology and earth system sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-28-1617-2024 · Cited by 16
“, we note that since the dataset of traits is large, and encompasses a broad set of categories (climate, geology, land use, human activities etc.), it is expected that not all traits (or trait clusters) are going to be related to hydrologic behavior.”
BackgroundZago, G. D. S., & Bastos, M. T. (2013) · Brazilian Journalism Research · doi:10.25200/bjr.v9n1.2013.510 · Cited by 15
Borrelli, D., Iandoli, L., Ramírez-Márquez, J. E., & Lipizzi, C. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems · doi:10.1109/tcss.2021.3094775 · Cited by 20
The Manufacture of Partisan Echo Chambers by Follow Train Abuse on Twitter
Torres-Lugo, C., Yang, K.-C., & Menczer, F. (2022) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v16i1.19354 · Cited by 21
“For example, polarized and segregated echo chambers are commonly observed on social media (Jamieson and Cappella 2008; Garrett 2009; Conover et al. 2011; Lee et al. 2014), possibly leading to radicalization (Wojcieszak 2010; Bright 2018).”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Conover, M., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Goncalves, B., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media
- Published
- 2021-08-03
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 89-96
- ISSN
- 2162-3449 (ISSN-L)
- 2334-0770
- OpenAlex
- W4312820073
- Semantic Scholar
- 9a7ae269358c6366cc46dc924d63b47ba405d082
- Cited by
- 626
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 34 · 2025: 66 · 2024: 86 · 2023: 82 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 62
- FWCI
- 107.66
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (publishedVersion)
- AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
- Keywords
- political polarization, Twitter, retweets, mentions, social network topology, 2010 midterm elections, political communication, information dissemination, network clustering
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-13, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-13 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review